> The misleading thing about the “free law” angle is that PACER does not record “the law.” This is pretty much wrong. There are a variety of things on PACER th

> The misleading thing about the “free law” angle is that PACER does not record “the law.” This is pretty much wrong. There are a variety of things on PACER that would be considered "the law" from opinions (although a lot of them have recently been made available) to court orders and judgments. > It’s a system for accessing parties’ legal filings. ... as well as rulings made by the court and filings by the government. All of which are public records. >Opinions rendered by courts, which are “law” are generally posted on the courts’ websites: http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions. Only some and this is a recent development. > PACER is a service that’s primarily used by litigants that’s value is primarily to litigants. What is your basis for this assertion? The information on PACER is used by journalists, historians, litigants, lawyers, scholars and others. Why do we need to be concerned with who or why citizens want to access public information held by the government? > Litigants who need PACER access but can’t afford it are given free access. Why should a governments' citizens have to 'afford' access to the public information of said government? > It’s not unreasonable for the government to charge a user fee to access it, like all the other kinds of user fees the government charges for public services. (Indeed, the government charges substantial filing fees for availing oneself of the courts in the first place.) PACER charges are not cost based fees, unless you take the view that the "cost basis" is all of the technology infrastructure of the judicial branch. Rather it funds what is essentially a technology orientated slush fund that the AO of the US Courts doesn't want to let go of.